AMD EPYC 4244P vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data splits this comparison into two distinct personalities. The AMD EPYC 4244P dominates in Cinebench workloads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H counters strongly in PassMark math and encryption tests. Overall, the AMD EPYC 4244P wins 9 of the 17 head-to-head tests, with Intel taking 8.

The most dramatic gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The EPYC 4244P scores 23089 against the Intel's 9240, a 149.9% advantage. This is the single largest delta in the entire dataset, and it signals a fundamental difference in sustained multi-threaded rendering capability. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test tells a similar story: 2327 versus 1515, a 53.6% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 9697 versus 6381, a 52% edge. These are not marginal differences; the AMD part is in a different performance class for CPU-heavy rendering.

Single-core Cinebench results also favor the EPYC, though by a smaller margin. In R15 single-core, the AMD scores 328 against Intel's 251, a 30.7% lead. R20 single-core shows 1368 versus 900, again a 52% gap. R23 single-core gives 3259 against 1843, a 76.8% advantage. The AMD's higher base clock of 3.80 GHz versus 2.00 GHz contributes to this, but the boost clocks are identical at 5.10 GHz. The architecture clearly extracts more instructions per cycle in these rendering tests.

The Intel part fights back in PassMark's specialized workloads. Floating point math is its biggest win: 98796 versus 45546, a 53.9% lead for Intel. Prime number finding shows 303 versus 187, a 38.3% Intel advantage. Data encryption goes to Intel at 23395 versus 18232, a 22.1% margin. Extended instructions favor Intel at 23755 versus 22149, a 6.8% edge. PassMark multi-thread overall goes to Intel at 30703 versus 26797, a 12.7% lead. Physics tests give Intel 2254 versus 1981, a 12.1% win. Single-thread PassMark shows Intel ahead at 4317 versus 3710, a 14.1% margin.

The AMD still claims several PassMark victories, but they are narrow. Data compression goes to AMD at 302606 versus 298850, just 1.3% ahead. Integer math is nearly tied: 78709 versus 77975, a 0.9% AMD edge. Random string sorting gives AMD 38048 versus 36058, a 5.5% win. The average benchmark scores reflect this split: the AMD EPYC 4244P averages 34220, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H averages 33537. The AMD also holds a slightly higher percentile ranking at 84 versus 83.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4244P is the clear choice for workloads that stress sustained multi-threaded rendering. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result, with a 149.9% advantage, makes this unambiguous. Any task involving 3D rendering, video encoding, or scientific simulation that relies on CPU compute will favor the AMD part. The single-core Cinebench wins, ranging from 30.7% to 76.8%, also indicate stronger per-thread performance in these specific rendering tasks. The AMD's 32 MB shared L3 cache and 6 cores with 12 threads, running at a 3.80 GHz base clock, deliver the sustained throughput needed for these workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H wins in floating-point-heavy and specialized math tasks. The 53.9% lead in floating point math is substantial, and the 38.3% edge in prime number finding points to strong integer and algorithmic performance in certain contexts. Data encryption at 22.1% ahead makes the Intel part better suited for cryptographic workloads, database encryption, or secure communication processing. Extended instructions at 6.8% ahead suggest the Intel architecture handles AVX-style workloads with greater efficiency. The PassMark multi-thread score of 30703 versus 26797, a 12.7% lead, indicates that the Intel's 16 cores and 16 threads handle broad parallel workloads better despite the lower Cinebench results.

The Intel part also wins in PassMark single-thread at 4317 versus 3710, a 14.1% margin, which contrasts sharply with its Cinebench single-core losses. This suggests the Intel architecture favors certain instruction patterns over others. The physics test win at 12.1% adds another use case: physics simulation in gaming or engineering software. The AMD's wins in data compression, integer math, and random string sorting are narrow, each under 6%, so these are not decisive advantages.

For a use-case split, the AMD EPYC 4244P suits server or workstation environments where Cinebench-style rendering and multi-threaded CPU compute are primary. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H, with its mobile 28 W TDP and 16 cores, fits laptops or compact systems where varied workloads including encryption, floating-point math, and physics simulation matter more than pure rendering throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 4244P uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The L1 cache is 64 KB per core, L2 is 1 MB per core, and L3 is 32 MB shared. The die size is 71 mm² with 6,570 million transistors. It uses AMD Socket AM5 and supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. ECC memory is supported. PCIe is Gen 5 with 28 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are Radeon Graphics. The market segment is Server/Workstation, and it was released on 2024-05-20 with a launch MSRP of $229.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H uses the Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-H, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The L1 cache is 192 KB per core, L2 is 3 MB per core, and L3 is 24 MB shared. The die size and transistor count are not recorded in the database. It uses Intel BGA 2049 socket and supports dual-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported. PCIe is Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are Arc Graphics 140T. The market segment is Mobile, and it was released on 2025-01-12.

The core count difference is notable: 16 cores on Intel versus 6 on AMD, but the AMD has 12 threads while Intel has 16 threads, meaning AMD enables simultaneous multithreading while Intel does not. The AMD's 3.80 GHz base clock is much higher than Intel's 2.00 GHz, though both boost to 5.10 GHz. The process node differs, with Intel at 3 nm versus AMD at 5 nm, which typically allows for better power efficiency. The TDP reflects this: Intel at 28 W versus AMD at 65 W. The memory bandwidth favors Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s, and Intel supports LPDDR5X in addition to DDR5. The cache layout differs substantially, with Intel having larger per-core L1 and L2 caches but a smaller shared L3 (24 MB versus 32 MB).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: Both processors have an identical boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 4244P has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Intel has more physical cores, but AMD enables simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Both the AMD EPYC 4244P and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the AMD EPYC 4244P has 83.2 GB/s. Intel also supports LPDDR5X memory in addition to DDR5, while AMD supports DDR5 only.

Q: Which processor is better for Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 4244P scores 23089 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 149.9% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H's score of 9240.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4244P has an average benchmark score of 34220, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has an average score of 33537.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload type. For rendering and CPU-intensive compute, the AMD EPYC 4244P is the definitive choice. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 23089 versus 9240, a 149.9% lead, is the single strongest signal in the entire comparison. Single-core Cinebench also favors AMD across all three versions, with leads between 30.7% and 76.8%. Any user running 3D rendering, video encoding, or scientific simulation should select the AMD part without hesitation.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H wins in specialized math and encryption workloads. The 53.9% lead in floating-point math, 38.3% in prime number finding, and 22.1% in data encryption make it the better option for cryptographic tasks, financial modeling, or physics simulation. The PassMark multi-thread score of 30703 versus 26797, a 12.7% advantage, also indicates stronger general parallel processing in non-rendering contexts.

The TDP difference is significant: Intel at 28 W versus AMD at 65 W. For mobile or power-constrained systems, the Intel part is more appropriate. The AMD part is designed for server or workstation sockets with a 65 W TDP. The AMD has a higher launch MSRP of $229, while the Intel has no recorded launch MSRP. The AMD also holds a slightly higher percentile ranking at 84 versus 83.

For a workstation dedicated to rendering, choose the AMD EPYC 4244P. For a laptop or compact system handling varied workloads including encryption and floating-point math, choose the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H. The data does not support one chip as universally superior; it supports matching the chip to the workload.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 4244P | Intel Core Ultra 7 255H |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.80 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 28 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Raphael | Arrow Lake-H |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 6,570 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 71 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 32 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 28 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2024-05-20 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $229 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | 100-000001480 | SRQAN |